An increasing number of federal grazing permittees are
facing tough times. Foreign beef imports, domestic competition, export restrictions,
drought, Mad Cow disease, and recreational and environmental conflicts have
all conspired to make livestock grazing untenable on some public lands. Some
permittees have sizeable debt. Many permittees do not have children who are
willing or able to come back to take over the family ranch. 10

The Multiple-Use Conflict Resolution Act (H.R. 3166) proposes
paying federal grazing permittees/lessees to voluntarily retire their permits/leases
at a rate of $175/animal unit month 11 -- well above
the average capital value of most federal grazing permits and leases. 12
With this generous payment, permittees/lessees could convert their ranches to
exclusively private lands operation (without federal overseers); payoff the
bank; retire, without having to sell or subdivide their ranch base property;
convert their ranch to another business (hunting/fishing lodge/guide service;
birding outpost; bed-and-breakfast; dude ranch); and/or leave a cash legacy
for their loved ones. 13

Re-capitalization of the Rural American West

As permittees/lessees opt for buyout and invest their
federal compensation in new economic opportunities, their communities will benefit
from the new income, increased taxes and new jobs. Studies have indicated, and
as permittees/lessees will discover, there is greater economic value in non-consumptive
uses of federal public lands (hunting, fishing, birding, hiking, guiding, camping,
horseback riding) than livestock grazing.

Taxpayer Savings

Given the roughly $200 million annual subsidy for the
federal grazing program, 14 the simple payback to taxpayers
for compensating ranchers under MUCRA is as short as 17 years. 15
The legislation offers a return on investment for taxpayers of almost six percent
annually, and has a benefit-cost ratio of over 1.57 to 1, or $1.57 saved for
every dollar spent. 16

Resolution of Social, Legal and Public Lands Management
Conflicts

MUCRA would resolve livestock grazing conflicts in a fair
and equitable manner. As livestock are removed from public lands, litigation
over livestock conflicts with wildlife, watersheds, and recreation will decrease.
17 Both the removal of livestock and the subsequent
reduction in environmental litigation will free up agency resources from developing
grazing plans, defending against lawsuits, processing endless paperwork, and
responding to public complaints about grazing abuse. 18
Fewer livestock on public lands will also result in fewer new species listings
and speed recovery of species already listed under the Endangered Species Act.
19